Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining]

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:04:07 -0700
> 
> > You misunderstand what Stefan says.  He says not calling the
> > before-change hook _at_all_ is a bug.  Not calling it for every chunk
> > of deleted text is not necessarily a bug, if there's a previous less
> > fine-grained call to the hook.  And that's what the text above
> > conveys: that note every chunk to be deleted will have its own call to
> > a hook.
> 
> So we're in agreement? True or false: b-c-f ought to be a conservative 
> bound on subsequent a-c-f calls.

Of course we are in agreement, about the essence.  Your text saus the
same as mine, except that I don't find "conservative bound" to be more
helpful than what I wrote, quite the contrary.

> >> I strongly disagree. b-c-f is a perfectly good way to invalidate caches.
> >
> > So the readers need to know they cannot rely on that.
> 
> Why shouldn't they be able to rely on that? What *should* they use to 
> invalidate caches? Your position is not very clear to me.

Stefan described the alternatives up-thread.